Barrrow wants to have it both ways on abortion -- and maybe he will

John Barrow is trying to have it both ways on abortion - and may get away with it.

The Democratic congressman from Savannah says he's for women's rights to choose abortion.

Nationally, that is almost a litmus test among Democrats, who have freely applied it not only to each other, but also to judicial nominees.

But Barrow voted recently against letting federal funds be used to pay for most kinds of abortions.

On that vote, he was on the prevailing side on one of many showdowns on a health care reform bill that narrowly passed in the House. Citing the costs of the measure and other concerns, he voted against it.

Of course, there is a political context.

He's seeking a fourth term in the 12th Congressional District.

The political currents there flow in two directions.

Lots of Democrats subscribe to the litmus test. But many people - not all of them Republicans - think the rights of an unborn child trump a woman's right to choose.

Against that backdrop, Barrow is being opposed for his party's nomination - as he was in 2008 - by former state Sen. Regina Thomas of Savannah.

Thomas chides Barrow not only for his vote against the health care bill but also for his vote on abortion funding.

She says cutting off federal funding effectively denies at least some women the right to exercise their right to choose.

Barrow, however, notes this is nothing new.

Since 1976, the so-called Hyde Amendment, named after the late Rep. Henry Hyde, has barred using federal money for most kinds of abortions.

Barrow observes that the amendment has backing from members of both parties.

He says he supports it, too, and wants it applied to any federally funded national health care insurance plan.

"It represents a basic understanding that a woman's right to choose does not entail a woman's right to get somebody else to pay for the procedure," he said last week.

The amendment also recognizes people on both sides are motivated by their "personal fundamental beliefs," Barrow said.

He said women still may pay for abortions with their own money or for health plans that fund them.

"It is not entirely satisfactory for everybody," he said, "but that is the way it is. That is the way it has been for 30-something years."

Not surprisingly, Thomas rejects his view.

"That's double-talk," she said last week.

Whatever its merits, Barrow's position probably wouldn't fly in a Democratic primary in California, New York or Massachusetts. Maybe it wouldn't in Atlanta.

In such places, primaries draw the most committed Democrats. They tend to be liberals who apply the litmus test on abortions to funding for them.

National liberal groups supporting Thomas hope that will happen in the 12th District and that it will spell trouble for Barrow.

But it probably won't.

Sure, black voters likely will cast a majority of the ballots in the July 20, 2010, primary.

But, though reliably Democratic, they aren't reliably liberal on social issues, especially in middle and south Georgia. Or at least not liberal enough to toss Barrow out on his ear because of his stand on abortion.

Barrow, whose campaign expense reports show he has polled extensively in his district, likely knows that.

Asked last week whether his surveys have covered the abortion issue and, if so, what they indicated, the congressman wouldn't say.

Instead, he restated his talking points from a day earlier.

"Regardless of anyone else's opinion on this matter," he said, "while I support a woman's right to choose, I also believe that federal funds should not be used to pay for elective abortions."